“One of the associates told Ynet that the speech was ‘befitting,’ and that they were particularly pleased with Obama clarifications about considering the 1967 borders as the basis for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but not necessarily as the final ones.”

***
[S]ome Israeli media also asked if Netanyahu himself stoked an air of crisis.

Contrary to impressions that he was surprised by Obama’s speech [at the State Department on Thursday], reports on Sunday confirmed he was told over 24 hours ahead of time that Obama would propose a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, and had called Washington to try to get the president to change his mind and his text — without success.

When Obama went ahead, Netanyahu, who was about to board his flight to Washington, issued a strong statement rejecting the suggestion. Officials seemed taken aback and an aide, asked if Netanyahu had been forewarned, said: ‘No comment.’…

“In radio interviews on Sunday, … Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren on Sunday confirmed that Netanyahu was informed in advance. Asked by Israel Army Radio, ‘Why create a crisis?,’ Oren said: ‘We do not feel that there is a crisis. There are differences.'”

***
“George Mitchell, who stepped down as the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Middle East last week, said Sunday that President Obama’s call to base Israeli-Palestinian peace talks on pre-1967 borders is not a threat to Israel…

“‘A major objective of this initiative, among others, is to prevent a disaster for Israel from occurring at the United Nations General Assembly in September, when the Palestinians have said they will see a unilateral declaration of statehood,’ Mitchell said. “The president spoke out strongly against that. We oppose it. And the way to prevent that from occurring is to provide an alternative in direct negotiation that would foreclose or make not necessary that option.'”

***
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must accept U.S. President Obama’s vision for Mideast peace if talks with the Palestinian Authority are to resume, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Sunday…

“Speaking to the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA on Sunday, Erekat said that an Israeli acceptance of Obama’s guidelines was essential if stalled negotiations were to resume, saying that as far as the Palestinians were concerned peace talks ‘actually aim at realizing this [Obamas’] objective, the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with these borders, along with swap of territories.'”

***
“It’s no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel’s boundaries before the Six Day War.

“Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel’s future borders with a Palestinian state ‘should be based on the 1967 lines,’ a position he tried to offset by offering ‘mutually agreed land swaps.’ Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule…

“If the borders between Israel and the Palestinians need to be negotiated, then what are the implications of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that states up front that those borders must be the 1967 lines? Some commentators assert that all Mr. Abbas wants to do is strengthen his hand in future negotiations with Israel, and that this does not contradict a negotiated peace. But is that really true? Why should Mr. Abbas ever negotiate with Israel if he can rely on the automatic majority of Third World countries at the U.N. General Assembly to back his positions on other points that are in dispute, like the future of Jerusalem, the refugee question, and security?”

***
“That was a deeply unwise speech Obama just gave to AIPAC. The president did not ask himself the first question of political speechmaking: Why am I saying this? Instead he surrendered to his personal exasperation with Benjamin Netanyahu, and escalated a confrontation he had every reason to de-ecalate.

“The president did not merely restate his view on the 1967 lines. He added extra emphasis on a worrying point that was implicit in his big Thursday speech on the Middle East: that the future Palestinian state will have exclusive responsibility for security arrangements within its territory. So, if a rocket is fired at Israel from the West Bank, it will be the security forces of the Palestinian state that will deal with it – or not. If Hezbollah intrudes into the West Bank it will be the security forces of the Palestinian state that will react – or not. And since those security forces are to be non-militarized, they may well lack the means even if they have the will.

“The speech left me wondering: if the president is prepared to state now, in advance, that he has a view on the territorial outcome of negotiations, why won’t he state now, in advance, that he has a view on Palestinian refugee claims? Why won’t he state a view in advance on the non-division of Jerusalem? The thing most important to the Palestinians is now the official position of the Obama administration. The concerns of Israel have either been rejected in advance (security within the future West Bank Palestinian state) or else left for negotiation.”

***
“Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means.

“By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967

Idjit doesn’t seem to know that there was no border on June 4, 1967. There was an armistice line, and that is a very different thing from a border. Why the he!! doesn’t he learn a little history before he starts telling other countries what to do?!

Bibi is all class. He slaps Obama around like the amateur he is in a live press conference and then gives him cover. I’m sure he’s well aware that’s a courtesy that wouldn’t have been extended to him had roles been reversed.

Yesterday and today proved again that some groups of people are just insanely stupid. May they and progeny suffer directly from Obama’s destruction. They will believe, vote and pay for him. They deserve such destruction in full.

For a head of state to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of.

Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip seen in Jerusalem tonight as a disastrous humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on Jewish settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisors and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman who spoke to the Prime Minister said today.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House phone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.
———————————————————–

Considering that Obama regularly says things without the slightest thought as to whether he actually means them or not, the “we are still friends with Israel” might as well been the recipe for enchiladas. Obama showed who his friends were by giving them the nod to do as they please to Israel without concern of the US aiding one of her most important allies.

I am just incredibly ashamed that since he is Prez, at the moment this is officially how the US treats her allies.

1948 – The real cause of the present Palestinian refugee problem was the wave of Moslem and anti-Israel fanaticism which swept the Arab world after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The return of the Palestinians to their former homes became impossible …
==================================

1967

1967 – The Jordanian Government has repeatedly insisted that it speaks for the Palestinians living in Jordan and for those in the West Bank of the Jordan River , which occupied by Israel in 1967. Israel, too, contends that the problems of the Palestinians are to be …
============================================

Israel’s struggle for “defensible borders” is unique in international diplomacy. It emanates from both the special legal and strategic circumstances that Israel faced in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Israel Defense Forces captured the West Bank and other territories in a war of self-defense. The previous armistice line of 1949 that separated the Israeli and Jordanian armies was only a military boundary and not a permanent political border, according to the armistice agreement itself. The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank occurred in conjunction with its illegal invasion of the State of Israel in 1948. In fact, Jordanian sovereignty in the West Bank was not recognized by a single Arab state. This provided the background for UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 which concluded that Israel would need “secure and recognized boundaries” that would necessarily be different from the 1967 lines. The previous status quo was not to be restored. In diplomatic shorthand, President George W. Bush stated on April 14, 2004, that Israel had a right to “defensible borders,” in order to convey the same point.
======================

Yitzhak Rabin, in his last appearance in the Knesset, said:
***********************************************************

“We will not return to the lines of June 4, 1967 – the security border for defending the State of Israel will be in the Jordan Valley, in the widest sense of that concept.” In 1980 he determined: “Our evacuation of the West Bank would create the greatest threat we can possibly face.”
=================================

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has emphasized
*********************************************************

that Israel needs defensible borders and that Israel must not be pressured to withdraw to the 1967 lines.
==================================

Summary
*******

Looking at the question of Israel’s borders strictly from a professional military standpoint, a withdrawal to the 1967 lines will put Israel in a grave situation for the following reasons:

Israel will not have the ability to defend itself against a conventional military threat should it materialize in the future; given the current state of the Middle East, no one can promise that such a threat will not materialize.

Israel’s ability to prevent the destruction of its national infrastructure in the event of a missile attack will decline greatly, and its second-strike capability will significantly diminish.

Because of these two weaknesses, the chances will increase that Israel’s adversaries will decide to exercise their capacity to attack, in one of those two ways or in a combination of both.

With respect to terrorism, when facing curved-trajectory weapons – from mortars to rocket fire – the distance of a future border from essential areas of vital Israeli infrastructure is a critical factor affecting the success of such attacks against Israel. Moreover, to prevent other terrorist attacks against Israel, security zones add a critical element to any security fence in order to make it effective against infiltration.

The importance of geography and defensible borders has been voiced by leading international figures from different political camps. During a conversation with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when the Barak government was contemplating a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines (with minor adjustments), I explained that the Israeli government hoped to rely on international guarantees and U.S. backing.

Kissinger responded lividly
****************************

that he tells everyone that
Israel needs defensible borders and he adds that Israel must not be pressured to withdraw to the 1967 lines – and then Israel considers such a withdrawal and relies on guarantees. He explained that South Vietnam had international guarantees from twenty countries. Yet when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, no country took Kissinger’s telephone calls. His implication was clear: do not rely on guarantees and risk withdrawing to the 1967 lines.
===========

Without Israeli control of the relevant territory east of the 1967 line, there is no way the Israel Defense Forces can prevent the firing of rockets and mortars from the hills dominating Ben-Gurion International Airport. One mortar shell per week in its vicinity will be enough to stop air transport completely.
===============================

Well, thanks a lot for that. *heads to kitchen to heat up some goulash*

predator on May 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM

The only time I got slapped across the face by mom was when I told her to box up that goulash sh!t and send it to starving Africans. I got sent to bed without supper, and the next day they had pork chops while I had to eat cold leftover goulash.
I was eight and never sassed her like that again…

mmmmm enchiladas… with sour cream and spanish rice and refried beans w/cheese melted on top…. now I am not just mad, I am hungry.

kringeesmom on May 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Exactly. At least if he woulda said that rather than the bald-faced “Israel is my friend” lie Bibi would have had an idea what to order in when Obama snubbed him for dinner because he’s a petty little warthog.

The only time I got slapped across the face by mom was when I told her to box up that goulash sh!t and send it to starving Africans. I got sent to bed without supper, and the next day they had pork chops while I had to eat cold leftover goulash.
I was eight and never sassed her like that again…

OmahaConservative on May 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM

I had a similar experience over some goulashy dish, mom brought it to the table and dad asked, “What the hell do you call that, mystery meat? She left for two days leaving us to fend for our selves. I do not recall a similar criticism since.

When the Israelis finally controlled all of Jerusalem in ’67 they ‘discovered’ that the Jordanian had been paving roads…with Jewish tombstones.
The Nazi’s used to do the same thing when they took over an area.

ObaMao may try to walk back his intent by blaming the “misunderstanding” on the media, but he fools no one. ObaMao was being deliberately, audaciously provocative. He underestimated the more skilled Netanyahy, who schooled him soundly. ObaMao gave his own dog whistle to the Arabs, who certainly understood O’s speech, as did Netanyahu.

The President proved two very telling things, he’s willing to kiss anyone’s hiney for votes and he fully intends to ram his ideology down the throats those same people who’s hiney he just kissed.

He’s determined to continue having the power to ram more of his vision down our throats and now that includes his fear of alienating the non Jews at the UN who he needs to vote for his true calling, his international agenda, while President of the world at the United Nations.

Will he need Jews there? Or even after he’s reelected?
Will we matter? At all?

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Mr Netanyahu’s anger was compounded by the fact that he had been taken by surprise, learning the contents of Mr Obama’s Thursday speech about the future of the Middle East just a few hours before it was delivered.

During a furious phone call to Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, shortly before the speech, Mr Netanyahu stated that American backing for a state based on the borders that existed before Israel’s Six-Day war of 1967 with Egypt, Syria and Jordan was unacceptable.

Mr Obama’s speech was delayed for 25 minutes as a result but the US president did not bow to Mr Netanyahu’s demands.

Although Mr Obama also spoke of land swaps that would allow Israel to annex some Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Mr Netanyahu said the proposal would leave Israel “indefensible”.

His aides went further. “There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, Washington does not understand what we face,” one official accompanying Mr Netanyahu to the United States said.

American officials were dismayed that a speech they intended to be remembered for its high-minded embrace of human rights in the Middle East had immediately been embroiled in controversy as a result of Mr Netanyahu’s incandescent reaction

They pointed to a November 2009 statement by Mrs Clinton which included almost identical language to that used by Mr Obama on Thursday.

Mr Netanyahu said he would use the trip to demand that his host recant and abide by a commitment made by President George W Bush in 2004 acknowledging that a return to 1967 borders was “unrealistic”.

I had FNC on this morning and saw that jug-ears was getting ready to give another speech, and I thought,”What a great time to put on some tunes and do my spring bug spraying around the house and exterior.”

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must accept U.S. President Obama’s vision for Mideast peace if talks with the Palestinian Authority are to resume, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Sunday…

On the eve of his own planned campaign announcement, Tim Pawlenty released an Internet video declaring that he is running for president because he — unlike President Obama — has the courage to face America’s challenges.

In another slickly produced video that has become a hallmark of his campaign, Mr. Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, confirmed Sunday night that he would officially begin his bid for his party’s nomination in Iowa on Monday.

When the Israelis finally controlled all of Jerusalem in ’67 they ‘discovered’ that the Jordanian had been paving roads…with Jewish tombstones.
The Nazi’s used to do the same thing when they took over an area.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM

annoyinglittletwerp:It makes one sick,what these Jihadys
have done,and still are, to Israel!

But even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything, if the story of Israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.

The Talmud teaches us that, “So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.” And that lesson seems especially fitting today.

For so long as there are those across the Middle East and beyond who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.

And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism; it is not naïveté.

Sounds to me that he’s totally prepared to have Israel take the brunt of the sacrifice. (from Althouse)